Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70010
| From | Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding |
| Date | 2019-11-23 11:26 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <qrb1ga$5ls$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <qr8gep$esf$1@dont-email.me> <qr8jeg$v7n$1@dont-email.me> <qr8pu5$657$1@dont-email.me> <qr99qg$ats$1@dont-email.me> <ln4kyvxh5k.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
Il 23/11/19 07:04, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
> Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> writes:
> [...]
>> let's say it explicitely
>>
>> if I have
>> union
>> {
>> struct
>> {
>> u_int_8 Red, Green, Blue, Alpha;
>> };
>> u_int_32 AllChannels;
>> };
>>
>> without PRAGMA, do I have any explicit or implicit warranty
>> that my union be 32 bit long ? If so, PRAGMA is useless. If
>> not, it seems it might be useful.
>
> Fixing the spelling of uintN_t (n=8,32) and adding a tag to the union so
> you can use it to define objects:
again ...
Keith, I did not edit the header manually, and sized ints
HERE are spelled as I wrote.
...omissis...
#ifdef __USE_MISC
/* Old compatibility names for C types. */
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef unsigned short int ushort;
typedef unsigned int uint;
#endif
/* These size-specific names are used by some of the inet
code. */
#if !__GNUC_PREREQ (2, 7)
/* These types are defined by the ISO C99 header
<inttypes.h>. */
# ifndef __int8_t_defined
# define __int8_t_defined
typedef char int8_t;
typedef short int int16_t;
typedef int int32_t;
# if __WORDSIZE == 64
typedef long int int64_t;
# else
__extension__ typedef long long int int64_t;
# endif
# endif
/* But these were defined by ISO C without the first `_'. */
typedef unsigned char u_int8_t;
typedef unsigned short int u_int16_t;
typedef unsigned int u_int32_t;
# if __WORDSIZE == 64
typedef unsigned long int u_int64_t;
# else
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long int u_int64_t;
# endif
typedef int register_t;
#else
/* For GCC 2.7 and later, we can use specific type-size
attributes. */
# define __intN_t(N, MODE) \
typedef int int##N##_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (MODE)))
# define __u_intN_t(N, MODE) \
typedef unsigned int u_int##N##_t __attribute__
((__mode__ (MODE)))
# ifndef __int8_t_defined
# define __int8_t_defined
__intN_t (8, __QI__);
__intN_t (16, __HI__);
__intN_t (32, __SI__);
__intN_t (64, __DI__);
# endif
__u_intN_t (8, __QI__);
__u_intN_t (16, __HI__);
__u_intN_t (32, __SI__);
__u_intN_t (64, __DI__);
typedef int register_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__word__)));
...omissis...
as you can see the types are spelled as I wrote them, and a
search for uintXX_t does not find anything
is this that big problem ?
I guess the variations stands for the same concept
>
> union u {
> struct {
> uint8_t Red, Green, Blue, Alpha;
> };
> uint32_t AllChannels;
> };
>
> (You have an anonymous struct, which is standard but wasn't added until
> C11, so older compilers might not support it, or might not support it
> by default.)
it gives me warnings indeed, but seems to compile nevertheless
>
> You're guaranteed that the Red and AllChannels members start at the same
> location, the very beginning of the union. You're guaranteed that Red,
> Green, Blue, and Alpha are at increasing offsets in the order you
> defined them.
>
> It's very very likely that the struct and the union will both be
> exactly 32 bits. A compiler is not prohibited from adding padding
> between members or after the last one,
and that was the reason why I had thought of trying to give
it a strong hint not to pad by mean of a #pragma pack directive
> but there's unlikely to be
> any good reason to do so in this case. The most likely way this
> could fail is if a compiler insisted on making the structure 64 bits.
so either it packs natively, either it listens to my
explicit hint, either it ignore the #pragma and does not pack.
Does the #pragma directive increase, decrease, not affect
the likelyhood of packing ? That was the reasoning behind my
approach
I thought : I give you an hint : TRY to pack. If you really
cannot, there is nothing else I could do
>
> You can easily add a compile-time or run-time assertion that
> sizeof (struct u) == 4 && CHAR_BIT == 8
that's a very good idea !
> so your program won't compile, or at least won't run, in the
> unlikely event that it's used with an implementation that doesn't
> meet your requirements.
>
> There is *no* guarantee about which of the four uint8_t members
> correspond to which part of AllChannels.
and I don't need such warranty : I use AllChannels only for
mass-copying, assignments, copy constructor. When I need
access to separate channels I use named members.
> Google "endianness" if
> you're not familiar with this.
I just know the problem but I am not familiar in the sense I
had never had to write pieces of code depending on this aspect
> It's very common for Red to overlap
> either the high-order byte or the low-order byte of AllChannels.
Yes, but I did no assumption about the order of bytes in the
"long" int
> The other 22 permutations are rare or nonexistent, but Google
> "PDP-11 middle-endian" for an odd case.
>
> If you're doing bitwise operations
no, I chose the struct right to avoid that.
My only possible and very unlikely source of problems could
be if Gambas and C++ has a mean to use a different bit
ordering within a byte.
I did not even give a thought, it seemed to me more an
hardware related feature so transparent to both gambas and C++
> on the entire 32-bit word without
> caring about the order of the bytes, then that might not be an issue.
>
> Attempting to use #pragma pack is very likely to do nothing *at best*.
well ... until now, I am thinking it is likely to do nothing
*at worst* as no one has explained which drawbacks it were
supposed to be in the particular case (I'm not referring to
other more general examples with longer integers
hypothetically spanning non multiple addresses : here I have
1 byte sizes, and the only big member starts at 0 offset)
>
> [...]
>
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-20 19:55 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-20 20:12 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-20 22:33 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-20 20:22 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-11-20 19:34 +0000
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 00:54 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-20 16:27 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Manfred <invalid@add.invalid> - 2019-11-21 01:48 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 04:09 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-20 17:44 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 04:14 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-20 22:03 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 01:00 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-21 13:22 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-21 11:30 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-21 22:54 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-11-20 23:28 +0200
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-20 15:48 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2019-11-21 10:33 +0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-21 13:25 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-20 22:32 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-20 22:43 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 12:53 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-11-21 18:20 +0200
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-21 18:07 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-11-21 17:34 +0000
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2019-11-22 07:26 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-22 00:37 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 10:10 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-22 02:23 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 12:38 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-22 17:13 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 18:48 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-22 10:49 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-22 10:52 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 12:51 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-22 11:20 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-22 10:00 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 09:37 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-22 01:37 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 11:40 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-22 04:55 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 15:18 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-22 07:23 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 16:34 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-11-22 15:16 +0000
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-23 05:11 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-22 10:56 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-23 07:03 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-22 11:31 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 12:23 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-22 13:14 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-22 15:04 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-22 19:35 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-22 14:11 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-23 00:25 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-22 23:56 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-23 11:12 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-11-23 14:51 +0200
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-25 11:45 -0500
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-22 22:04 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-23 11:26 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-23 12:27 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-24 00:54 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-23 17:06 -0800
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> - 2019-11-24 12:10 +0100
Re: [QT creator on "nix"] - getting a strict 8 bit (1 byte) array with no padding Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 13:21 -0800
csiph-web